Docket Numbers: FF 110542-RT, FE 110247-RT
STATE OF NEW YORK
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY RENEWAL
OFFICE OF RENT ADMINISTRATION
GERTZ PLAZA
92-31 UNION HALL STREET
JAMAICA, NEW YORK 11433
-----------------------------------X
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
APPEALS OF DOCKETS NO.: FF 110542-RT
FE 110247-RT
HERMAN GROSSBERG
SYLVA ZAMCZYNSKI, DRO DOCKET NO.: CD 130196-OM
Premises: 65-60 Booth St.,
PETITIONERS Apts. 6H, 6C, Rego Park, N.Y.
-----------------------------------X
ORDER AND OPINION DENYING PETITIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW
The above-named tenants timely filed petitions for administrative
review of an order issued concerning the housing accommodations
relating to the above described docket numbers.
The petitions have been consolidated for disposition as they involve
similar issues of law or fact.
The Commissioner has reviewed all of the evidence in the record and
has carefully considered that portion of the record relevant to the
issues raised by the petitions.
The owner commenced the proceeding below by filing an application
for a rent increase based on various major capital improvements, to
wit-boiler/burner, windows, elevator controller.
Both tenants filed answers to the owner's application. One tenant
alleged, of which is pertinent to the issues raised by the petition,
that the old windows were defective and in need of replacement
anyway. The other tenant requested an extension of time to file an
answer and to date the record does not include any additional
response.
Thereafter, the Rent Administrator issued the order here under
review finding that the installation qualified as a major capital
improvement, determining that the application complied with the
relevant laws and regulations based upon the supporting documenta
tion submitted by the owner, and allowing appropriate rent in
creases.
In their petitions for administrative review, the tenants request
review of the Administrator's order and alleges that the quality of
the windows is poor, that the windows can only be locked in the
closed position, that the window trim is incomplete, that there is a
broken kitchen window, that there is an inadequate supply and
regulation of hot water, inadequate heat, and that the owner is
improving its property for which the tenants will pay the cost.
Additionally they assert that the owner has increased the rent
several times and now there is another rent increase.
Docket Numbers: FF 110542-RT, FE 110247-RT
Subsequently, the owner interposed an answer to one of the tenants'
petitions which states that all the improvements were performed in
full compliance with all rules and regulations of DHCR and the
petitioner's assertions are without legal merit. As to the tenant's
assertion of a broken window, the owner contends it's not but rather
the pane of glass is out of its track and had been repaired, that
the prior windows did not lock and neither do the new windows, that
there had not been any prior complaints about heat or hot water
which are maintained at 73o and 180o respectively and the boiler
installation had been inspected and approved by all related
agencies.
After careful consideration the Commissioner is of the opinion that
these petitions should be denied.
Rent increases for major capital improvements are authorized by
Section 2202.4 of the Rent and Eviction Regulations for rent
controlled apartments and Section 2522.4 of the Rent Stabilization
Code for rent stabilized apartments. Under rent control, an
increase is warranted where there has been since July 1, 1970 a
major capital improvement required for the operation, preservation,
or maintenance of the structure. Under rent stabilization, the
improvement must generally be building-wide; depreciable under the
Internal Revenue Code, other than for ordinary repairs; required for
the operation, preservation, and maintenance of the structure; and
replace an item whose useful life has expired.
The Commissioner can not entertain the tenants' assertions raised
for the first time on appeal. The record in the instant case
indicates that the owner correctly complied with applicable
procedures for a major capital improvement and the Rent Administra
tor properly computed the appropriate rent increases. The tenants
have not established that the increase should be revoked.
This order is issued without prejudice to the tenants' right to file
an application for decrease in services, should the facts so
warrant.
The tenant's reference of more than one increase is not specific and
this order is issued without prejudice to the tenant's right to file
a rent overcharge complaint, if the facts so warrant.
THEREFORE, in accordance with the Rent Stabilization Law Code, and
the Rent and Eviction Regulations for New York City, it is
Docket Numbers: FF 110542-RT, FE 110247-RT
ORDERED, that these petitions be, and the same hereby are, denied
and that the Rent Administrator's order be, and the same hereby is,
affirmed.
ISSUED:
ELLIOT SANDER
Deputy Commissioner
|
